CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oi Tai Chan v. Society of Shaolin Temple, Inc.

In this vigorously contested action alleging fraud and breach of contract, the court addressed several motions. Defendant Shi's motion for summary judgment was denied due to unresolved factual disputes regarding the nature of significant monetary transfers from the plaintiff to a religious organization. The court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to resume defendant Shi's deposition, sanctioning defense counsel Kenneth Jiang for repeatedly instructing his client not to answer questions in defiance of prior court directives. Additionally, the court denied Shi's cross-motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel, citing a lack of necessary testimony, cumulative evidence, and the motion's untimely and potentially retaliatory nature. A special referee was appointed to supervise remaining discovery and settlement efforts.

Fraudulent InducementBreach of ContractDiscovery DisputeSummary Judgment MotionDeposition ObstructionAttorney SanctionsCounsel DisqualificationRules of Professional ConductAudio Recording AdmissibilityQueens County Court
References
68
Case No. AHM 0109985
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

JOSE PERDOMO vs. ABC SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., ESIS

This case involves a dispute over a deposition scheduled by applicant's counsel, which defense counsel claims was erroneously set and misrepresented. The defendant sought removal of an order that took the case off calendar, alleging prejudice from applicant's counsel's representations. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the off-calendar order, and returned the matter to the trial level to determine the conflicting factual claims regarding the deposition.

Petition for RemovalOrder Taking Off CalendarAppirionWCJDepositionApplicant CounselDefense CounselVerified AnswerReport and RecommendationTrial Level
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McLaughlin

The People moved to disqualify the Legal Aid Society from representing the defendant, Mr. McLaughlin, on the grounds that the Society had previously represented a key prosecution witness, Mr. Luis Elicier. The defense argued against the motion, citing timeliness and claiming no actual conflict of interest. The court, presided over by Justice Carol Berkman, found an actual conflict due to the Society's prior representation of Elicier and their stated intent to implicate him in the current crimes. Despite the defendant's desire to retain his chosen counsel and the Society's proposed 'Chinese Wall' defense, the court ruled that the conflict of interest was undeniable and ordered the disqualification of the Legal Aid Society. The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the justice system and protecting the former client's confidences, overriding the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice in this instance.

Attorney disqualificationConflict of interest (legal)Sixth Amendment right to counselAttorney-client privilegeEthical violationsCriminal defenseProsecution witnessFormer client representationJudicial ethicsNew York courts
References
13
Case No. ADJ7646278
Regular
May 25, 2012

KIRK ALVARADO vs. ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

Former applicant's counsel sought reconsideration of an arbitrator's order requiring them to pay $525.00 to reimburse the defendant for a failed deposition. The arbitrator based the order on a "fair balance" rather than bad faith, believing the defense was ready to proceed. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the cost order. The Board found that miscommunication between the applicant and his attorney, not counsel's fault, caused the deposition's failure.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFailed DepositionReimbursement of CostsLabor Code Section 5811MiscommunicationApplicant's CounselDefense CounselAward of Costs
References
0
Case No. ADJ8718900
Regular
Jun 27, 2019

JOSE ANTONIO RAMIREZ RAYA vs. JOANNE RUIZ, dba J'S SPORTS BAR & GRILL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the judge's order that denied a motion to quash a deposition of defense counsel. The Board found that depositions of opposing counsel are disfavored and require a high standard of cause, which was not met. Furthermore, the judge denied the motion without a hearing or proper justification, violating due process. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for well-supported discovery requests given the age of the claim.

Petition for RemovalMotion to QuashDeposition of Defense CounselOpposing Counsel DepositionDisfavored DiscoveryIntoxication DefenseLabor Code Section 3600(a)(4)Burden of ProofPanel QMEStipulation
References
2
Case No. ADJ8596014
Regular
Nov 07, 2018

DION GEORGE vs. KJI PLUMBING, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a $\$ 750$ sanction imposed by a WCJ against defense counsel and KJI Plumbing for defense counsel's failure to appear at a hearing. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the failure to appear was due to defense counsel's negligence, not willful misconduct. Consequently, the Board reduced the sanction to $\$ 250$ and removed KJI Plumbing as a liable party, solely sanctioning defense counsel and his law office. The Board cautioned that future failures to appear could establish a pattern justifying larger sanctions.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsWCJDefense CounselJointly and SeverallyUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of ReadinessLabor Code § 5813WCAB Rule 10561
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LeFever v. Stultz

Plaintiff Kleon M. LeFever and defendant Ralph Stultz, both assistant general counsel at North American Philips Corporation, were involved in an incident in 1977. Stultz, intoxicated, lost balance and fell, dragging LeFever, who severely injured his right eye. LeFever received workers' compensation benefits. Subsequently, LeFever sued Stultz, whose answer included a Workers' Compensation Law defense. Special Term initially granted LeFever's motion to strike this defense. The appellate court found that Special Term erred, concluding there is a triable issue of fact regarding whether Stultz was acting in the course of his employment, despite his intoxication. Therefore, Stultz's Workers' Compensation Law defense is reinstated, and the plaintiffs' motion to strike is denied.

Workers' Compensation Law DefenseFellow Employee InjuryIntoxication at WorkCourse of EmploymentTriable Issue of FactMotion to Strike DefenseAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryEmployer PremisesAccident at Work
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1992

Tushaj v. Elm Management Ass'n

The case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, dated July 10, 1992. Defendant Elm Management Association, Inc. sought to amend its answer to include a workers’ compensation affirmative defense and for summary judgment on that defense, but the initial motion was denied. The appellate court modified the order, granting Elm Management Association, Inc. leave to amend its answer to assert the defense, while affirming the remainder of the lower court's decision. Evidence from the plaintiff's deposition suggested Elm Management Association, Inc. exerted control over the plaintiff, raising a factual question about a potential special employment relationship and applicability of workers' compensation. The court emphasized that leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted unless there is evidence of prejudice or unfair surprise.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeAffirmative DefenseAmendment of PleadingsSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureEmployment RelationshipControl TestPrejudiceThird-Party Defendant
References
3
Case No. OAK 0295096
Regular
Sep 14, 2007

DAVID JONES vs. CSAA and ACE/ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order that denied sanctions against defense counsel. The applicant's attorney sought sanctions based on allegations of bad faith tactics in resisting a deposition fee and in subsequent payment negotiations, arguing the defense repeated arguments previously rejected in a similar case. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found no new evidence and maintained that the defense's actions did not rise to the level of bad faith warranting sanctions.

WCABReconsiderationSanctionsLabor Code §5813Bad Faith TacticsDeposition FeePeden v. Lockheed MartinLabor Code §5710Attorney's FeesStanding
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,361 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational